Thread: Guns Guns and MORE Guns

There are some interesting differences between the Canadian made C7 and US made M16.

The Canadian M16

Bob

Yes, the American procurement system seems to have always been a joke after WWII. They always have some brass with ego in the way.
Why should an adjustable sight cost millions? Militaries the world over learned not to give a regular soldier something he could screw-up easily in combat.
Then, they don't do things which just make good sense like the hammered barrels and adjustable stocks until someone else does it and someone retires so it can go forward.
Sort of like the AR10 debacle. A portion of the pile spent on the M14 might have been used to further development of the AR10 and get a modern rifle going like the rest of the civilized world seemed to do. Tax dollars at work on the whims of a few I suppose.

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Militaries the world over learned not to give a regular soldier something he could screw-up easily in combat.

I think the AK47 is a classic example of a rifle that is not easily screwed up by the user. There is also no need to reinvent the wheel every time a new rifle is needed either. I think the AK74 is a prime example of not reinventing the wheel and was very much a cost effective way of not doing so. The long evolution of the M16 is also another example of not reinventing the wheel.

Bob

Funding, timing, and timing of funding have a lot to do with it.

The M-14 was sold to congress as the rifle that we already knew how to build and use. Had the M14 been ready for production and issue anywhere from 1944-1954, it would have been the perfect rifle. Except that it really wasn’t a product improved M1 (Garand) but a whole new gun. Funding for the project was sporadic and many of Springfield’s machines dated from the 1930s. Delays, delays. Remember, we had the A-Bomb and they did not, so what’s the hurry?

The hurry was that the Korean War showed that small wars and small Korean dictators would coninue be a thing.

By the time the experimental AR10 reared its exploding composite barrel, the M14 was nearly ripe for serial production. A switch over to the AR10 would have added easily another five years of development but ten years is not out of the question. But while a mature AR10 might have been better than the M14, any 7.62 NATO rifle was going to be behind the curve of the small-caliber, high-velocity developments. Timing.

So, now we’re left with the M16/M4 family of rifles and carbines that show every sign of becoming America's old brown Bess. Sure, there are more modern designs but nothing that justifies the cost of switching over.

Not to change the subject but todays quiz is: Who is William George Armstrong and what is "The Armstrong Gun"? Who knows without looking?

I looked.....

Originally Posted by sharptonn

I looked.....

Well then...that's two demerits.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Not to change the subject but todays quiz is: Who is William George Armstrong and what is "The Armstrong Gun"? Who knows without looking?

The Armstrong Gun is a pub round the corner from me

Originally Posted by markbignosekelly

The Armstrong Gun is a pub round the corner from me

I read this as it was a "pub round" and thought I was going to have to look up a type of bullet.

Ha! It's just a regular Public House not far from me named after the gun TBS was referring to. Unfortunately the atmosphere and quality of the pints are a little to be desired...